well.... yeah? I mean, what's the diff, exactly? if it'd turned out that britain won you can rest assured the tea party would be seen exactly how you're looking at this event now
and if a couple hundred years from now it happens that the stuff going on now was a historical turning point then, I imagine this event or events like it would be seen similarly to the boston tea party
not to say that vandalism is justified (it's hard to even say that the tea party was justified... it was literally about taxes), but I'm not sure I understand what the difference is that you're seeing between the two acts of vandalism
>be mid-late 1700s american who is housing british soldiers that eat my food against my will
>british parliament an ocean away by law gives my colony zero legal ability to influence my government
>british govt legislates act that forces us to buy heavily taxed tea from a govt company
>destroy tea due to taxation without representation
>be modern american who has never seen a soldier in person more than a few miles from a military base
>american congress 1 state away gives my state legal ability to not only influence but become a part of my government
>murderous handicaps too insane to undermine a stable, flexible, and established democratic system kill a couple of people during fight against opposing side's fellow radicals; neither side supported by government
>destroy statue instead of meaningfully responding to the crimes due to uncontrollable feels
not one difference here
